From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
David Runge <dave@sleepmap.de>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 17:23:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201027172309.GA15004@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87eelj1tx0.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 06:05:15PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Is there a way to raise a softirq and preferably place it on a given
> > CPU without our IPI dance? That should be a win-win situation for
> > everyone.
>
> Not really. Softirq pending bits are strictly per cpu and we don't have
> locking or atomics to set them remotely. Even if we had that, then you'd
> still need a mechanism to make sure that the remote CPU actually
> processes them. So you'd still need an IPI of some sorts.
Ok. I was hoping we could hide this in core code somehow, especially
a peterz didn't like the use of smp_call_function_single_async in the
blk-mq completion code very much.
Sebastian, would this solve your preempt-rt and lockdep issues?
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index cdced4aca2e812..5c125fb11b5691 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -626,19 +626,7 @@ static void __blk_mq_complete_request_remote(void *data)
{
struct request *rq = data;
- /*
- * For most of single queue controllers, there is only one irq vector
- * for handling I/O completion, and the only irq's affinity is set
- * to all possible CPUs. On most of ARCHs, this affinity means the irq
- * is handled on one specific CPU.
- *
- * So complete I/O requests in softirq context in case of single queue
- * devices to avoid degrading I/O performance due to irqsoff latency.
- */
- if (rq->q->nr_hw_queues == 1)
- blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq);
- else
- rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq);
+ blk_mq_trigger_softirq(rq);
}
static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-27 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20201021175059.GA4989@hmbx>
2020-10-23 11:04 ` [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-23 11:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-23 13:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-27 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 10:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-27 16:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 17:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-27 17:23 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-10-27 17:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-27 20:58 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 6:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Don't complete on a remote CPU in force threaded mode Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-28 14:47 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-29 14:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 14:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-29 20:03 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-10-29 21:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 21:07 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-10-31 10:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe
2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-10-31 18:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-11-04 19:15 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-11-06 15:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 10:04 ` [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201027172309.GA15004@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave@sleepmap.de \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).